Chris Granger / The Times-Picayune archiveThe appeal of a federal lawsuit against energy companies, claiming their emission of greenhouse gasses exaccerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina, was denied a rehearing because too many judges on the appeals panel recused themselves.So many members of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have recused themselves from a rehearing of a lawsuit that charges energy companies with contributing to the effects of Hurricane Katrina by emitting greenhouse gases that the court cannot conduct the rehearing.

The result is a victory for the roughly 30 energy companies being sued, for it essentially reinstates the ruling of the U.S. District Court in Mississippi dismissing the case. The plaintiffs may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs had scored a victory in the appeals court in October, when a three-judge panel reversed the lower court's ruling and ordered that the suit against the energy companies, filed by residents of coastal Mississippi, be allowed to move forward.

But earlier this year, the appeals court, which has 16 judges, decided to rehear the case as a group, and in doing so vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel. Almost immediately, seven of the judges recused themselves from the en banc hearing; more recently, an eighth did so.

The latest ruling, issued last week, does not explain why the judges recused themselves, but it is likely that they own stock in one or more of the petrochemical, coal and electric utility corporations that are defendants in the lawsuit, or have other ties that could cause a conflict of interest.

The suit claims that by emitting greenhouse gases, the companies helped cause global warming, exacerbating Katrina's wrath. The companies being sued have argued there is no evidence linking their emissions to Katrina's effects.

In a 2007 ruling, the Supreme Court determined global warming exists, is man made and is a threat.

The ruling issued last week simply says the court can no longer conduct an en banc hearing for mathematical reasons. Though the rehearing was canceled, the quashing of the three-judge panel's ruling stands.

"After the en banc court was properly constituted, new circumstances arose that caused the disqualification and recusal of one of the nine judges, leaving only eight judges in regular active service, on a court of sixteen judges, who are not disqualified in this en banc case," said the unsigned opinion representing five of the eight remaining judges. "Upon this recusal, this en banc court lost its quorum. Absent a quorum, no court is authorized to transact judicial business."

The ruling said the remaining judges also cannot rewrite the court rules to allow further proceedings in the case, again, because they would not represent a majority of the court.

"Because neither this en banc court, nor the panel, can conduct further judicial business in this appeal, the clerk is directed to dismiss the appeal," the ruling said, adding that individual judges could file dissenting opinions, and that the defendants in the lawsuit could appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court.

Dissenting from the recent ruling were Judges Eugene Davis, Carl Stewart and James Dennis -- the three judges who issued the earlier ruling.